Re: RDF Core / I18N

Hello Sandro,

At 14:58 03/08/06 -0400, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>It seems to me you (on behalf of I18N) want these RDF property
>elements to mean the same thing:
>
>1.    <title>Weaving the Web</title>
>
>2.    <title rdf:parseType="Literal">Weaving the Web</title>
>
>3.    <title rdf:datatype="xsd:string">Weaving the Web</title>
>
>4.    <title xml:lang="">Weaving the Web</title>
>
>5.    <title xml:lang="" rdf:parseType="Literal">Weaving the Web</title>
>
>Right?

Yes.



>You also would LIKE these to be the same as each other:
>
>7.    <title xml:lang="en">Weaving the Web</title>
>
>8.    <title xml:lang="en" rdf:parseType="Literal">Weaving the Web</title>
>
>9.    <title xml:lang="en" rdf:datatype="xsd:string">Weaving the Web</title>
>
>but XML Schema says you can't have #9, because xml:lang does not
>affect the datatype mapping.

Yes. I think 9. is not that important.



>They say #5 and #9 would be the same;
>xml:lang is silently dropped.  And because XML Schema says this, RDF
>Core is now trying to say the same thing: you can't even have #8,
>because (according to RDF Core's view) parsetype-Literal as
>essentially a kind of datatype.

Well, except that we talked with them about dropping language from
datatypes, and explained to them that this was the right thing
because the XML Schema datatypes are designed as language/
locale independent notations (just integers, just dates,...).
What we never expected from them is to a) shoehorn XML Literals
into datatypes (which may be okay if it helps them and doesn't
hurt us), and b) turning around and nuking language information
from XML Literals.



>So if XML Schema changed to allow xml:lang to affect the mapping,
>you'd get what you wanted and RDF Core could also give you what you
>wanted at no extra cost.   Right?

Not exactly. Adding language information to things such as integers,
decimals, dates,... leads to all kinds of weird questions. We have
had to work quite a bit on Schema for them to not do that.
(because you could write a date as 8/6/03 or 6/8/03 or many other
ways, and claim that they follow different languages, and even
if that claim is a bit weird, you could very well claim it for
Wednesday August 6, 2003,..., but overall, that would not lead
to interoperability at all).



>I realize this isn't practical in the next few weeks, but I wanted to
>make sure I at least understood the situation.

Thanks!       Martin.

Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2003 18:44:36 UTC